The curious case of Alan Dershowitz' WSJ opinion piece on Epstein

As most of you know, the attorney-general (Pam Bondi) and the director of the FBI have said a) Epstein killed himself; and b) despite rumors that he had a list of men who'd had sex with under-aged girls at his parties, there was no such list.

So if no list, supporters said "If that's true, why not release ALL material related to Epstein?"  The Dem-ruled Media smelled blood, and the current Narrative is that Trump participated.

In another article, WSJ reporters said they saw a bawdy birthday card from Trump to JE with a hand-drawn nude figure and lots of salacious typed dialog.  Trump denies writing any such card, but the Media is having orgasms.

Alan Dershowitz was Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer.  On July 15 the Wall Street Journal printed an Opinion piece from him about sealed evidence in the Epstein case.  Highlights:

AD wrote that he couldn't reveal some of what he knew due to attorney-client privilege, and because some testimony had been sealed by judges.  But he says Epstein never created a “client list.”
 
The quotes around "client list" are in the WSJ article, and they're revealing:  AD is saying Epstein didn't create something *specifically called a "client list."*

That suggests there could be *some* sort of list, just not *called* a "client list."

AD says the FBI interviewed girls who claimed to have been at Epstein's parties--girls AD carefully calls "alleged victims--and says they named several recognizable men who were present.  He says the courts have ordered all the names sealed, but says he knows who they are, and that "They don’t include any current officeholders."

This last seems unusual: AD is a total liberal, and would seem to have every reason to stoke the fires of anger in Democrat voters.  If that's true, why would he include the phrase above that can be taken to mean Trump isn't mentioned?

I think it's to fire up Trump *supporters* to demand the release of all material on JE.  And AD says the media should petition the courts to release (unseal) all the names and information.  

He admits "There are videotapes, but they are of public areas of" Epstein's Palm Beach home.  He says Epstein reported the theft of money and a gun from a drawer in his living room, so the police installed a video camera.  Ever heard of cops installing a videocam in a private home?  Me neither.

AD doesn't mention whether Epstein had cameras in his NYC townhouse--and since this was where most of his parties were held, that's a big omission.

He also wrote "I am not aware of video cameras in guest bedrooms."  "I am not aware..." eh?

He writes that "Open records show an acquaintance between Epstein and Mr. Trump many years ago. That relationship ended when Mr. Trump reportedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, long before becoming president. I have seen nothing that would suggest anything improper or even questionable by Mr. Trump."

Again, you wouldn't expect AD would have any desire to exonerate Trump, and yet he does just that.  It's...curious.

If your bullshit-detector hasn't gone off yet, here ya go:  He writes "It's clear from the evidence that Epstein committed suicide. What isn’t clear is whether he was assisted by jail personnel."

The first statement is utter horseshit:  While it's certainly possible he killed himself, a huge amount of "circumstantial evidence" suggests that he was murdered: cameras on his cell failing just before he died, his cellmate being moved out for no reason, guards sleeping when they were supposed to be making rounds, and most telling: He had huge assets to appeal any conviction for decades, and could have argued that by surrendering his passport he wouldn't be a flight risk if he remained free until his appeal was heard.

So...while he *could* have killed himself, to claim that "It's clear from the evidence that Epstein committed suicide," as AD does, is clearly horseshit.  And it shows that AD is on-board with the Narrative.

One of the mysteries of the Epstein case is that after he was charged in 2009 or so with sex trafficking underage girls in Florida, a U.S. attorney named Alex Acosta gave him an astonishingly sweet deal, allowing him to xxx

Acosta claims he was told--by never-named sources--that JE was working for a U.S. intel agency, so he was to get a light sentence.  This doesn't pass the smell test: If it had been true, charges would have been quietly dropped on some bullshit excuse like "no corroborating evidence."  Because any real intel agency that allowed its agents to do jail time would soon find itself short of agents, eh?

Interestingly, there's no evidence that the government ever cross-examined Acosta to find the details about his allegation that "I was told...."  Of course that could have been because it's true, but as just noted that seems unlikely.  But another possibility is that Acosta may have simply been paid off.  

Dersh claims Epstein never worked for any intelligence agency, because if he had, Dersh believes he would have told AD and his other lawyers, who might have been able to use that to get him a better deal.  
AD notes that the claim that Epstein was working for the Israeli intel agency Mossad probably arose from credible allegations that the father of Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell worked with Mossad.

SO...my guess is that Trump probably attended Epstein parties with underage girls, in which case it's understandable that he wouldn't want that revealed.  Dersh probably wrote the WSJ piece to assure Trump that he was on-board with keeping any secrets.  Guess we'll see. 

Source: the Wall Street Journal

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-inside-scoop-on-jeffrey-epstein-b0da1cbe